I'm not religious, I have a relationship with God.

[Chris V++]

Would you say this is the type of Christian who doesn't believe in going to Church with other like minded believers and worshiping?

Possibly. 'I'm not religious, I have a relationship with God' is something that someone who doesn't see the value in church attendance might say. But my best guess is he was trying to communicate the idea that a person's heart and spiritual condition are more important for salvation than strict adherence to the rituals and sacraments specific to any particular denomination /religious institution.

 

[Albion]

Francis Drake said

"I grew up as a child in a typical English Anglican church and never heard the gospel. In fact what I do recall of their attempts at the gospel, it was drivel.
"However, I did hear God speak to me one day as I was standing outside the church with a bunch of other kids."

Possibly. 'I'm not religious, I have a relationship with God' is something that someone who doesn't see the value in church attendance might say. But my best guess is he was trying to communicate the idea that a person's heart and spiritual condition are more important for salvation than strict adherence to the rituals and sacraments specific to any particular denomination /religious institution.

To be more precise, Chris, it was an assertion that nothing other than a personal message from God was at all necessary or important. And it was not about rituals and sacraments "specific to any particular denomination," but in reference to any and all churches.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Perhaps he simply worships God, not religion. He worships God, not the house of God. I guess some are taught by their church/denomination, that kind of thinking is a big no no.

 

[Albion]

Perhaps he simply worships God, not religion. He worships God, not the house of God.

That's a bit strong, don't you think--"worships God, not the house of God?" How many people do you know who actually do worship the house of God in preference to worshipping God?

But we have pointed out that such a person is defying Christ's direct instructions to his followers when he instituted the sacraments, the grace that is imparted by those sacraments, the collective memorial of Our Lord's suffering and death, the special assurance of one's sins having been forgiven, being a recognized member of Christ's church, and the fellowship and instruction that comes with being part of a congregation which Scripture also directs. That's quite a lot for the deliberately unaffiliated believer to be avoiding.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There are many different ideas of what God is. To some people, God is like "the Force" in Star Wars - an impersonal and mysterious energy field created by life that binds the galaxy together. I don't know how one could have a "relationship" with such a God (other than by become a Jedi adept). Then there are people who see God as personal - very personal. So personal that He talks to them and to no one else. I suppose one could have a relationship with such a God, but it would be a very different God from the one of the Christian bible, or even the Jewish Torah or the Muslim Quran. In all these faiths, God is personal, but He also asks that those that believe in Him join in community. Whether that joining is in special building, or people's homes, or out in the open air, the essential factor is not the architecture, but the community of like-minded believers. For people who believe in such a God (which certainly includes anyone who believes in the bible), some form of recognition of community relationships in faith is essential to the practice of that faith. That common practice of the faith among a group of like-minded people can certainly be called a religion. Whether you want to add the qualifier "organized" is largely irrelevant. The point is it requires relationships with people, not just God. So anyone who says they have a relationship with God but are not religious must have a very non-standard idea of what God is. And I haven't even touched on the subject of whether these ideas of God are correct or not. I'm just looking at the logical consequences of saying "I am not religious, but I have a relationship with God."

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Yeah; and that's the part that didn't make sense to me. If the Bible is the word of God, but man wrote the bible, wouldn't that make the bible man's interpretation of God according to what he said? But if he doesn't read the bible, how does he get the faith by hearing the word of God?

I guess you are saying faith does not make sense. God gave everyon the measure of faith. You,my friend, have faith, even if you don't understand.God gave you faith. He also gave you will, that is the power of choice. I think of it as trust. You choose to trust that the chair you are sitting in will hold you and not dump you on the floor. That is faith. That is the measure of faith that everyone has. When someone prays to God,he trusts that God hears him.

The people who penned the Bible were men full of the Spirit of God and by the Spirit their writings are inspired.The Spirit of God is what draws people to God. People hear the inspired Word of God and the Holy Spirit draws them into belief in Jesus Christ the Lord.Understand, men only penned God's Word. But the Spirit of God that was within them inspire (dictated) what they wrote, so we can and do trust it.

I pray this helps.

 

[Chris V++]

But we have pointed out that such a person is defying Christ's direct instructions to his followers when he instituted the sacraments, the grace that is imparted by those sacraments, the collective memorial of Our Lord's suffering and death, the special assurance of one's sins having been forgiven, being a recognized member of Christ's church, and the fellowship and instruction that comes with being part of a congregation which Scripture also directs. That's quite a lot for the deliberately unaffiliated believer to be avoiding.

Yes, quite a lot. If this person is preaching deliberate unaffiliation he may be one for the OP to avoid. The guy who evangelized me way back when over beers hadn't attended church in years, but he always at least prefaced every exchange with 'I'm not really living the real Christian lifestyle. '

 

[Albion]

deleted

 

[Ceallaigh]

That's a bit strong, don't you think--"worships God, not the house of God?" How many people do you know who actually do worship the house of God in preference to worshipping God?

I'm saying a church/denomination can be so overbearing it pushes God off to the side.

But we have pointed out that such a person is defying Christ's direct instructions to his followers when he instituted the sacraments, the grace that is imparted by those sacraments, the collective memorial of Our Lord's suffering and death, the special assurance of one's sins having been forgiven, being a recognized member of Christ's church, and the fellowship and instruction that comes with being part of a congregation which Scripture also directs. That's quite a lot for the deliberately unaffiliated believer to be avoiding.

You just don't understand what not being religious means. It doesn't mean refusing to get baptized, or refusing to go to church, or refusing to take communion etc. It just means not being overly swept up in liturgy. It just means a relationship with God is the primary focus. Church for most folks is usually 90 minutes a week. A healthy relationship with God is 24/7. I'm sure there are plenty who feel as long as the go though the motions their church puts them though once a week, they've done their duty and that's that.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I heard a person who appeared to be Christian say this. What does this mean? He said religion is man's interpretation of God, where relationship with God is God without man's interference. But it seems to me, because men wrote the bible, without religion you don't get the Bible, and without the Bible you don't get Jesus; so how do you get to Jesus without religion?

It's a common refrain from within some parts of the Evangelical Protestant world. It stems from re-defining the word "religion" to mean something it doesn't usually mean.

It also re-defines Christianity as a purely individualistic, esoteric experience of "having a personal relationship with God".

This way of talking about Christianity is very idiosyncratic, and comes from a very specific form of modern, western chiefly Evangelical Protestant Christianity. It's not a characteristic of Evangelicalism per se, but that is generally where such rhetoric is used.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

I'm saying a church/denomination can be so overbearing it pushes God off to the side.



You just don't understand what not being religious means.

I hear you, but this thread has already been shaped by the claims or statements of people who are not saying what you do here and, in addition we have the Original Post to deal with if we are to stay on topic. So it's not as though your interpretation is the only one we can deal with.

It doesn't mean refusing to get baptized, or refusing to go to church, or refusing to take communion etc. It just means a relationship with God is the primary focus.

Yours is one way of looking at it, and words like "religion" or "relationship" leave a lot of room for flexibility, but we have all read posts here that are NOT, definitely NOT, saying what you just have said, ALTHOUGH it appeared to me thatt you thought you were amplifying their statements. You are saying that I do not understand your point, although I do, but am I not also allowed to reply to the people whose approach, as posted here, is somewhat different?

 

[Ceallaigh]

I hear you, but this thread has already been shaped by the claims or statements of people who are not saying what you do here and, in addition we have the Original Post to deal with if we are to stay on topic. So it's not as though your interpretation is the only one we can deal with.



Yours is one way of looking at it, and words like "religion" or "relationship" leave a lot of room for flexibility, but we have all read posts here that are NOT, definitely NOT, saying what you just have said, ALTHOUGH it appeared to me thatt you thought you were amplifying their statements. You are saying that I do not understand your point, although I do, but am I not also allowed to reply to the people whose approach, as posted here, is somewhat different?

You and I seem to interpreting the original post and the replies made by others differently.

 

[Albion]

And not all of the others. Those posters who took in everything that's in the title as well as the OP saw that the issue was not as elementary as some supposed it to be.

Yes, yes, we all get that a relationship with God (real or imagined) is different from what organized churches offer. But that's not all that we were presented with.

 

[NBB]

I like the saying 'is not a religion its a relationship' if you see what the world think of religion, that is a set of beliefs rites and practices and some building, if you go by the dictionary it says the same.
i don't think those who says this, are saying doctrine is not important.

 

[Ken-1122]

Thank you for articulating that, some denominations exist with this question as a foundation.

(to your question) How? The Holy Spirit.

Do you have to be familiar with the Bible in order to know the Holy Spirit?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Do you have to be familiar with the Bible in order to know the Holy Spirit?

No.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Up until the 19th century, many if not most people couldn't read.
According to the article below, only 12% of the people in the world could read and write in 1820.
Literacy

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Many people up until the 19th century couldn't read.

It's kind of why the early church used pictures or icons to teach.

 

[Ceallaigh]

It's kind of why the early church used pictures or icons to teach.

From what I've heard, that's why old churches have stained glass depictions.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

From what I've heard, that's why old churches have stained glass depictions.

That makes sense.